Skip to main content

Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Robotic Assisted Hernia Repair

Abstract

  • Paraesophageal hernias are an uncommon form of hiatal hernia (10%). Symptomatic hernias should be repaired unless there are clinical parameters precluding safe and effective surgical intervention. Robotic repair is an efficient and ergonomic approach to this challenging anatomical problem.

  • The preoperative evaluation consist of a careful documented medical history and a workup comprising a esophagogastroduodenoscopy, pH testing (only performed if patients had disabling reflux symptoms), upper GI series and high-resolution manometry.

  • OR size must accommodate the robotic system consisting of three to four integrated components; the patient cart, the vision cart, and one or two consoles. The patient is placed in supine position with outstretched arms to 80° and split legs in steep reverse Trendelenburg. Four trocars, placed in the left upper abdomen and a subxiphoid incision for the Nathanson liver retractor are employed. The patient cart is docked on the left side or the head depending on the robot model.

  • The herniated contents are reduced, the hiatus and the left crus are exposed, the hernia sac is dissected off its mediastinal attachments, and any violation of the pleura should be addressed by means of immediate closure with suture or clip placement.

  • A 3 cm intra-abdominal esophageal length should be obtained with esophageal mobilization alone, otherwise a Collis gastroplasty must be performed to obtain additional esophageal length. The crura is closed using a running 0 non-absorbable barbed suture and a C-shaped GORE® Bio-A mesh is used routinely to reinforce the closure.

  • A tension-free 360° fundoplication is gauged over the bougie. The shoeshine maneuver is fundamental to ensure the proper orientation of the wrap demonstrating a “short-gastric to short-gastric” association.

  • It is important to recognize common early complications like; violation of the pleura and pneumothorax, bleeding, vagal injury, esophageal and gastric perforation and late complications like dysphagia, severe reflux and recurrence.

  • Operation of a symptomatic recurrent paraesophageal hernia should be performed by highly experienced surgeons, as these procedures represent a substantial technical challenge. In this setting, the robotic platform presents an invaluable approach.

  • The best timing for operative repair after an acute presentation is a subject of ongoing debate. Although any clinical or radiological suspicion of acute ischemia or perforation requires immediate surgical management, most acute presentations can be initially managed conservatively providing the opportunity for semi-elective repair.

  • Robotic compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and hiatal hernia repair has been demonstrated to be associated with increased costs in several studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Geha AS, Massad MG, Snow NJ, Baue AE. A 32-year experience in 100 patients with giant paraesophageal hernia: the case for abdominal approach and selective antireflux repair. Surgery. 2000;128(4):623–30. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2000.108425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Seetharamaiah R, Romero RJ, Kosanovic R, Gallas M, Verdeja JC, Rabaza J, Gonzalez AM. Robotic repair of giant paraesophageal hernias. JSLS. 2013;17(4):570–7. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13654754534594.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hall T, Warnes N, Kuchta K, Novak S, Hedberg H, Linn JG, Haggerty S, Denham W, Joehl RJ, Ujiki M. Patient-centered outcomes after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(1):106–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.12.054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Luketich JD, Nason KS, Christie NA, Pennathur A, Jobe BA, Landreneau RJ, Schuchert MJ. Outcomes after a decade of laparoscopic giant paraesophageal hernia repair. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139(2):395–404.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.10.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vasudevan V, Reusche R, Nelson E, Kaza S. Robotic paraesophageal hernia repair: a single-center experience and systematic review. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):81–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0697-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunnican WJ, Singh TP, Guptill GG, Doorly MG, Ata A. Early robotic experience with paraesophageal hernia repair and Nissen fundoplication: short-term outcomes. J Robot Surg. 2008;2(1):41–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-008-0079-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wirsching A, Zhang Q, McCormick SE, Hubka M, Low DE. Abnormal high-resolution manometry findings and outcomes after paraesophageal hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(2):181–8 e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.03.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pohl D, Tutuian R. Reflux monitoring: pH-metry, Bilitec and oesophageal impedance measurements. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;23(3):299–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2009.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Diez Del Val I, Martinez Blazquez C, Loureiro Gonzalez C, Vitores Lopez JM, Sierra Esteban V, Barrenetxea Asua J, Del Hoyo Aretxabala I, Perez de Villarreal P, Bilbao Axpe JE, Mendez Martin JJ. Robot-assisted gastroesophageal surgery: usefulness and limitations. J Robot Surg. 2014;8(2):111–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0435-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DeUgarte DA, Hirschl RB, Geiger JD. Robotic repair of congenital paraesophageal hiatal hernia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009;19(Suppl 1):S187–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2008.0185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Galvani CA, Loebl H, Osuchukwu O, Samame J, Apel ME, Ghaderi I. Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair: initial experience at a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(4):290–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zaman JA, Lidor AO. The optimal approach to symptomatic paraesophageal hernia repair: important technical considerations. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18(10):53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-016-0529-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Asti E, Sironi A, Bonitta G, Lovece A, Milito P, Bonavina L. Crura augmentation with Bio-A((R)) mesh for laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia: single-institution experience with 100 consecutive patients. Hernia. 2017;21(4):623–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1603-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Crespin OM, Yates RB, Martin AV, Pellegrini CA, Oelschlager BK. The use of crural relaxing incisions with biologic mesh reinforcement during laparoscopic repair of complex hiatal hernias. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(6):2179–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4522-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Memon MA, Memon B, Yunus RM, Khan S. Suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2016;263(2):258–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tam V, Winger DG, Nason KS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh vs suture cruroplasty in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;211(1):226–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.07.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park Y, Aye RW, Watkins JR, Farivar AS, Louie BE. Laparoscopic hill repair: 25-year follow-up. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(10):4111–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6150-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kercher KWMB, Ponsky JL, Goldstein SL, Yavorski RT, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Minimally invasive management of paraesophageal herniation in the high-risk surgical patient. Am J Surg. 2001;182(5):510–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Oelschlager BK, Yamamoto K, Woltman T, Pellegrini C. Vagotomy during hiatal hernia repair: a benign esophageal lengthening procedure. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(7):1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0520-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lidor AO, Steele KE, Stem M, Fleming RM, Schweitzer MA, Marohn MR. Long-term quality of life and risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(5):424–31. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rathore MA, Andrabi SI, Bhatti MI, Najfi SM, McMurray A. Metaanalysis of recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JSLS. 2007;11(4):456–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Brenkman HJ, Parry K, van Hillegersberg R, Ruurda JP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: promising anatomical and functional results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(6):465–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wirsching A, El Lakis MA, Mohiuddin K, Pozzi A, Hubka M, Low DE. Acute vs. elective paraesophageal hernia repair: endoscopic gastric decompression allows semi-elective surgery in a majority of acute patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(2):194–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3495-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC. Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(1):185–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4954-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joslin N. Cheverie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cubas, R.F., Cheverie, J.N., Horgan, S. (2019). Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair. In: LeBlanc, K. (eds) Robotic Assisted Hernia Repair. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23025-8_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23025-8_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23024-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23025-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics